INVESTIGATING ADVENTISM Q&A: Response to the SDA Argument on Law, Grace, and the Sabbath

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION

The argument presented commits a fundamental dialectical error at the outset: it opens with a sweeping accusation that our definitions of 'Law' and 'Grace' are unbiblical and agenda-driven while itself presenting redefined terms without exegetical support. This is the classic Begging the Question (petitio principii) fallacy: asserting that one's own definitions are biblical without demonstrating it from the text. We welcome rigorous hermeneutical engagement. But rhetoric is not exegesis. Let us proceed, argument by argument, with historico-grammatical discipline, sound Hebrew and Greek analysis, and the full canonical context.

ARGUMENT #1 REFUTED: The Decalogue, John 14:15, and the Nature of 'Commandments'

The SDA Claim

John 14:15 refers exclusively to the Decalogue. The Sabbath is the moral reflection of God's character. Removing the Sabbath destroys the authority of all ten commandments.

Q: What Does the Text Actually Say?

In John 14:15, Jesus says: "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (ἐντολάς mou the Greek is entolas mou). The critical question is: whose commandments? In the immediate context, Jesus is speaking his own commands, not citing Exodus 20. The genitive pronoun mou ("My") tethers these entolai to Christ himself, not to Sinai.

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (John 13:34 Grk. didomi entolen kainēn)

Note the word: kainēn = new, fresh, unprecedented in kind (καινήν), not merely neos (new in time). If the entolai of John 14:15 were simply a cross-reference to the Decalogue, why would Jesus use kainēn in John 13:34 just one chapter earlier? The SDA argument conflates "commandments" in John 14:15 with "the Decalogue" without a single word of Greek exegesis.

The Reductio ad Absurdum

The SDA argues that removing the Sabbath from our moral framework destroys the other nine commandments. Let us test this logic:

If the moral authority of the nine depends on the Sabbath being perpetually binding in its Mosaic form, then we have a problem. Exodus 20:8-11 commands Saturday rest, prohibiting all work under penalty of death (Numbers 15:32-36). Does the SDA consistently enforce capital punishment for Sabbath-breakers? No. Do SDAs refrain from all cooking, travel beyond a Sabbath day's journey, and fire-lighting? Inconsistently at best.

If removing one commandment collapses the nine, then modifying that same commandment's penalty and application should collapse them equally. The SDA cannot apply this logic selectively. You cannot claim the Sabbath's form is immutable while quietly modernizing its penalties and mechanics.

The Hermeneutical Issue: Creation Ordinance vs. Mosaic Codification

The SDA correctly notes Genesis 2:1-3 as the seventh-day pattern for Israel's Sabbath origin, but confuses the act of God's resting with a universal command. The Hebrew שָׁבַת (shavat) in Genesis 2 is descriptive: God rested. There is no imperative verb, no command to Adam and Eve, no institution of a weekly observance in the pre-Fall narrative. The command form of the Sabbath enters the biblical canon at Exodus 16 (manna collection) and is codified at Sinai in Exodus 20 addressed explicitly to Israel, tied to the Exodus event (Deuteronomy 5:15), not merely to creation.

"You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand... therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." (Deuteronomy 5:15)

The grounding in Deuteronomy 5 is redemptive-historical, not creational-universal. Moses himself provides two different rationales in Exodus 20 (creation rest) and Deuteronomy 5 (Exodus redemption). This dual rationale is typical of covenant sign-acts they are given specific theological meaning within a covenant context.

CROSS-EXAMINE Q1 If the moral authority of the nine commandments depends entirely on the perpetual binding of the Sabbath in its Mosaic form Saturday observance, death penalty for violators, no travel, no fire, no cooking then why does Adventism systematically modify every one of those Mosaic Sabbath stipulations while claiming the command itself is eternally unchanged? Is not the SDA position itself the very inconsistency it accuses us of?

 

ARGUMENT 2 REFUTED: 'Antinomianism,' Cheap Grace, and the Straw Man

The SDA Claim

Our position is antinomian 'Cheap Grace,' permitting disobedience under grace. True grace empowers obedience.

The Straw Man Fallacy: Named and Exposed

This argument does not engage our actual position. It constructs a caricature "okay lang sumuway dahil under grace tayo" and then defeats the caricature. This is the classic Straw Man fallacy (ignoratio elenchi). No responsible New Covenant theologian, Reformed Arminian, or mainstream evangelical has ever argued that grace is permission to sin. To accuse us of teaching this is either a deliberate misrepresentation or a failure to read our actual literature.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the theologian who coined the term "cheap grace" in The Cost of Discipleship, was himself arguing against dead religiosity within German Lutheranism not against the New Covenant framework. The SDA has appropriated Bonhoeffer's critique and weaponized it against a position Bonhoeffer never criticized.

"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:1-2)

This is precisely our position. Paul is the most "antinomian" writer in the New Testament by Adventist standards he wrote Galatians 3, Colossians 2, Romans 6-8 and yet Paul himself thunders against license. The question is not whether grace produces obedience (it does all sides affirm this). The question is: obedience to which law, under which covenant administration?

The Obedience Question: Romans 8 vs. Galatians 3

Our position is that under the New Covenant, the law of God is written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:10), not on tablets of stone. The locus of moral obligation shifts not to lawlessness, but to the indwelling Spirit who produces the fruit of righteousness (Galatians 5:22-23; Romans 8:4). The "righteous requirement of the law" is fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit. This is not antinomianism. This is pneumatology.

"For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death." (Romans 8:2)

If the SDA equates any departure from Decalogue-as-legal-code with antinomianism, then Paul himself is antinomian for he writes in Romans 7:6, "we have been released from the Law" (κατηργήθημεν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου katērgēthēmen apo tou nomou we were put to death to, made inoperative toward, the Law). The Greek katargeō is decisive. It is the same word Paul uses for the veil being abolished in 2 Corinthians 3:13-14.

The Real Talk Response: Turned Around

The SDA accuses us of creating doctrine "para maging komportable." We ask: is it not far more comfortable to reduce the entire Christian life to a Saturday observance as the litmus test of faithfulness, rather than carrying the full weight of dying daily to self (Luke 9:23), loving enemies (Matthew 5:44), and pursuing costly holiness in every arena of life seven days a week?

 

CROSS-EXAMINE Q2 You accuse us of teaching 'Cheap Grace' but you have not quoted a single line from our writings making that claim. Can you name one New Covenant theologian, one Reformed Arminian scholar, or one recognized exegete who has taught that grace is permission to disobey God? And if you cannot, are you not bearing false witness a violation of the very Decalogue you are defending?

 

ARGUMENT 3 REFUTED: The Sabbath as 'Creation Ordinance for All Humanity'

The SDA Claim

The Sabbath was instituted in Genesis 2:1-3, before the Jews existed, therefore it is a universal creation ordinance binding on all humanity.

The Exegetical Problem: Missing Imperative

This argument rests entirely on what the text does not say. Genesis 2:1-3 records three things:

(1) God finished His work,
(2) God rested (shavat) on the seventh day,
(3) God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. 

Not one of these clauses contains a second-person imperative directed at humanity. The text says God rested. It does not say Adam must rest every seventh day.

Compare this to actual creation ordinances that are explicitly given as human commands: 

a) The dominion mandate (Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it") contains direct imperatives in the second person plural (pĕrû ûrebû "be fruitful, multiply"). 

b) The marriage ordinance (Genesis 2:24 "a man shall leave his father and mother") uses 'azav a third-person jussive indicating normative human behavior. 

c) Genesis 2:1-3 has no equivalent imperatival structure directed at humans.

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8 Zākor 'et-yôm haShabbat leqaddesho)

The first command to humans to observe the Sabbath comes at Sinai. If it were a universal creation ordinance, we would expect pre-Sinai observance in the patriarchal narratives. Yet from Adam to Moses spanning thousands of years of biblical narrative not one patriarchal figure (Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph) is ever recorded observing, teaching, or referencing a weekly Sabbath rest. The silence of Genesis through Exodus 15 is exegetically deafening.

Exodus 16: The First Mention of Human Sabbath Observance

The first explicit human observation of the Sabbath in Scripture occurs at Exodus 16:23-30, in the context of the manna collection. Significantly, God presents this in language suggesting it is new information to Israel: "Tomorrow is a sabbath observance, a holy sabbath to the LORD" (v.23). If the Sabbath were a universal creation ordinance observed since Eden, why does Israel need to be told what it is?

"See, the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day." (Exodus 16:29)

The word "given" (natan) here marks the Sabbath as a gift being bestowed, not a universal practice being reinvoked. This is inauguratory language, not restorative language.

The Analogy That Exposes the Argument

The SDA logic runs: "God rested on Day 7, therefore all humans must rest on Day 7." But using the same hermeneutical logic: God created in six days, therefore all humans must work exactly six days and no more. God ceased from all creative work at the end of Day 6, therefore humans must never create anything new after completing their life's work. Do we apply 'God did X, therefore humans must do X' as a universal hermeneutical principle? Of course not. The SDA applies this rule selectively only when it supports their Sabbatarian obsession.

 

CROSS-EXAMINE Q3 If the Sabbath is a universal creation ordinance binding on all humanity from Genesis 2, can you show us, exegetically from the text of Genesis through Exodus 15, a single human being observing, teaching, or being commanded to observe a weekly Saturday Sabbath? And if that record is entirely absent if not one patriarch in over 2,000 years of biblical narrative touches it does that not falsify the claim that it was universally instituted and universally known?

 

ARGUMENT 4 REFUTED: 'It Is Finished' and the Continuity of Obedience

The SDA Claim

'It is finished' (John 19:30) means only that atonement is complete, not that the Law is fulfilled or done away. Obedience continues as the work of sanctification.

Agreement With a Critical Distinction

We agree entirely that sanctification requires obedience, that grace is not license, and that Christians are called to holy living. The SDA has set up a false dichotomy: either you keep the Decalogue as codified at Sinai, or you are living in lawless antinomianism. This is not a biblical either/or.

The Greek of Tetelestai

John 19:30 records tetelestai (τετέλεσται) a perfect passive indicative from teleō. The perfect tense in Greek signifies a completed past action with ongoing present consequences. Tetelestai was a commercial term: "paid in full." It appears on ancient receipts in the papyri (discovered in Egypt) written over invoices as proof of final payment.

But what is "finished"? The Gospel of John has been building toward this cry since 1:29 ("the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"). The fulfillment (plēroō) of the law is part of what is finished. Matthew 5:17 "I did not come to abolish (kataluō) but to fulfill (plēroō)" does not mean "maintain the law in its present form indefinitely." Plēroō means to bring to completion, to fill up, to bring to its intended telos. When a prophecy is plēroō'd, it is not perpetuated; it is consummated.

"For Christ is the end (telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4)

The Greek telos means end, goal, culmination. Christ is the terminus ad quem of the Mosaic Law. The law was given as a paidagōgos (Galatians 3:24 a guardian/tutor) until Christ came. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the paidagōgos. This is not Paul's marginal opinion; it is the central argument of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews.

Hebrews and the 'Better Covenant' Argument

The author of Hebrews makes the most sustained canonical argument that the Old Covenant of which the Decalogue was the covenant document (1 Kings 8:9, "in the ark there was nothing except the two tablets" the very constitution of the Mosaic Covenant) has been made obsolete:

"When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete; but whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)

The Greek here is pepalaioōken (has made old/obsolete) and eggus aphanismou (near to vanishing). This is not incidental language. The Old Covenant as an administrative structure including the Decalogue as its core document has been superseded by a better covenant with better promises (Hebrews 8:6).

The Sanctification Argument Turned Back

We affirm with full conviction: sanctification requires obedience. But the question is what law governs our sanctification under the New Covenant. The New Testament consistently grounds New Covenant ethics in the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2 νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ), the law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), and the love commandment as the fulfillment of all law (Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40). The nine moral principles of the Decalogue that are universally applicable are re-stated and grounded in the New Covenant not by carrying the stone tablet, but because they are inscribed on renewed hearts (Hebrews 10:16). The Sabbath alone is the one commandment from the Decalogue never once reiterated as binding on New Covenant believers in the entire New Testament epistolary literature.

CLOSING VERDICT: The Logic of the Whole SDA Argument

The four arguments presented share a common structural flaw: they all assume what they are trying to prove. The argument assumes that the Decalogue is the normative law for New Covenant believers and then criticizes any departure from that assumption as error, antinomianism, or comfort-seeking. This is circular reasoning (circulus in probando). The conclusion is smuggled into every premise.

Let us name the additional logical fallacies embedded in the "Real Talk" conclusion:

Ad Hominem / Motive Attack: "Ang turo ninyo ay man-centered para maging komportable kayo." This attacks the motive of the teacher rather than engaging the argument. Imputing comfort-seeking as the reason for New Covenant Theology is a personal attack, not a theological refutation. The proper response to an exegetical position is exegesis not psychoanalysis.

 

Appeal to Emotion / Guilt Trip: "Huwag ninyong gamitin ang pangalan ni Kristo para bigyang-katwiran ang inyong pagsuway." This is an appeal to shame and emotional pressure rather than rational argumentation. Calling our position "pagsuway" (disobedience) without establishing exegetically that the Sabbath is binding on New Covenant believers is the very question at issue it cannot be used as if it were already established.

 

False Dichotomy: The entire argument presents only two options: keep the Sabbath as SDA teaches, or you are living in Cheap Grace rebellion. This ignores the massive theological middle ground of New Covenant obedience that is both rigorously holy and Sabbath-free as a Mosaic obligation.

 

SDA CLAIM	EXEGETICAL VERDICT
John 14:15 = Decalogue observance	Eisegesis. Entolai mou = Christ's own commands (John 13:34). No textual basis for Sinai equation.
Sabbath = moral reflection of God's character	Category error. The Sabbath is a sign-act (Exodus 31:13), not an eternal moral absolute. God's eternal character is holy love, not Saturday rest.
Sabbath pre-dates Judaism = universal ordinance	Non sequitur. Absence of human command in Genesis 2; no patriarchal observance; Exodus 16 presents Sabbath as new institution.
'It is finished' ≠ end of law-keeping	Tetelestai = paid in full. Romans 10:4: Christ is the telos of the law. Hebrews 8:13: Old Covenant made obsolete.
Rejecting Sabbath = antinomianism	Straw man. New Covenant obedience is to the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), law of the Spirit (Romans 8:2), and love (Romans 13:8-10).

 

THE GOSPEL POSITION Former Adventists Philippines do not reject the Law we proclaim its fulfillment in Christ. We do not reduce obedience we ground it in the better covenant. We do not cheapen grace we declare it as the most costly thing in the universe: the blood of the Son of God. The Sabbath pointed to the rest found in Christ (Matthew 11:28-30; Hebrews 4:1-11). We have entered that rest. Every day is holy to the Lord. Every moment belongs to Christ. That is not Cheap Grace. That is the Gospel.

 

Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Solus Christus. Soli Deo Gloria.

Investigating Adventism Philippines | Ronald V. Obidos 

FORMER ADVENTISTS PHILIPPINES

​“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”

For more inquiries, contact us:

Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph 

Former Adventists Philippines Association, Inc 

SEC Registration No: 2025090219381-03

Partner with me in advancing this ministry. Be part of this mission! Your support helps us continue gospel-centered outreach and resources.

• GCash: 0969-514-3944

• PayPal: paypal.me/formeradventistsph

• Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/ronaldobidos